TexasCHLforum.com

Abraham wrote:Jusme,

Your post points out why I rarely take the time to discuss anything gun related with an anti.

I'm not going to engage an irrational person with logic. I've tried in the past and it's exhausting. Silly me.

They're going to do the equivalent of covering their ears and shouting babble, all the while exclaiming "I can't heeeeeeeeear you"!

Apparently, the 'survival gene' simply isn't there for them, but they want us to do without it too, because if we stand up for ourselves, (being armed) than they fear they may be found out to be wrong, and that isn't good for their fragile egos.

They'd rather die than defend themselves with a gun and want the rest of us to die too rather than resist evil with 'oh horror' a gun. Apparently, in their view, it's noble to be a victim.

Middle Age Russ wrote:

They say there are two types of people, Leftist who are motivated by their heart (emotions) and conservatives who are motivated by their brain (logic and reasoning) When a discussion devolves into statements like "I feel that .." there is no point into continuing unless the party can put aside their feelings and consider real facts and logic.

I have always found it interesting, if not outright odd, that the folks motivated by emotion are the ones more likely to "know what is good for" me and everyone else than those who carefully consider facts and logic. How can they possibly know what is best for anyone when they distance themselves from facts and logic for the sake of emotion and a holier-than-thou attitude?

Perhaps too often, I simply fail to engage in discussions with Antis. Of course, the attitude they usually bring to the discussion ("righteous" indignation that there can possibly be another perspective to consider) is not one I care to support by engaging them in debate. The "feelers" typically won't even try to debate and favor shouting down the opposition, using volume and the appearance of anger to carry the day. Such as these are not really worth the time to interact with since neither side will change opinions and all will walk away from the encounter feeling dissatisfied.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

Jusme wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:It is very difficult for me to talk to liberals in general, and anti-gun folks in particular. The problem is that logic comes naturally to me, and emotion does not. So I need to translate emotional statements into logical statements to process what they are saying, and I then need to translate my logical response into an emotional argument so they can understand it. This is very exhausting.

My latest interaction was with my brother in law, who told me that carrying guns was pointless since there were people open carrying in Dallas and they just "ran and hid" instead of shooting the guy with a rifle, who was targeting officers from an elevated position. The problem is that I can't translate this into logic, so I can't even start to formulate a good response.

BTW, the closest logical translation I could come up with is "having a gun should make you into a super-human capable of defeating all attackers, or you shouldn't carry at all", which is of course illogical. In other words, I couldn't even translate his statement into anything I understand.

You might tell you BIL, that every police officer is trained, that when he/she is being fired upon, the first thing you do is "seek cover" it doesn't matter how well armed they may be. Anyone that would stand in the line of fire is not too bright. Secondly, shooting at someone who is in an elevated position, means that you can't be sure of what may be behind the target. They only do that in the movies. Lastly, no one forces anyone to carry, if your BIL chooses not to do so, that is his prerogative, just as it is yours to do so. JMHO

Yes. That all makes complete sense to me. But may not make a lot of sense to those among us who can not understand logic.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:It is very difficult for me to talk to liberals in general, and anti-gun folks in particular. The problem is that logic comes naturally to me, and emotion does not. So I need to translate emotional statements into logical statements to process what they are saying, and I then need to translate my logical response into an emotional argument so they can understand it. This is very exhausting.

My latest interaction was with my brother in law, who told me that carrying guns was pointless since there were people open carrying in Dallas and they just "ran and hid" instead of shooting the guy with a rifle, who was targeting officers from an elevated position. The problem is that I can't translate this into logic, so I can't even start to formulate a good response.

BTW, the closest logical translation I could come up with is "having a gun should make you into a super-human capable of defeating all attackers, or you shouldn't carry at all", which is of course illogical. In other words, I couldn't even translate his statement into anything I understand.